Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    April 14, 2013 10:00pm-10:30pm PDT

10:00 pm
revenue generated to provide the funding support for the gardens in addition to the maintenance. and i'm just curious as to what's going on in this particular component to put the gardens in a situation like this. >> right, and i don't know i can give you detail on that, fully answer the question. and i'm not sure we have anyone here from the successor agency who is sort of helping to manage the transition of that asset. and we've been in discussion with them. we know that -- because my understanding was that they did have some redevelopment money that was able to support their capital program, but now -- and that's what part of the gap is that may not be there now. and, so, how -- >> there may not be enough of it? because it's consistent in terms of the revenue that is generating so -- >> right. they've expressed concerns to us that the revenue is generated and they do plan to keep those agreements going and discuss maybe trying to revisit
10:01 pm
some of those agreements to bring in potentially more revenue to address the renewal -- just the renewal needs. >> okay. >> so, we're working with them. and, again, my understanding is that they're looking at a lot of different solutions that could potentially work for them. ~ around -- and a lot of it is working with the business community in that area to make sure we keep that asset vital and well maintained, you know. >> in that particular case, and i realize it is a city asset, but we have numerous hotels, a number of museums and the ability to make that parted area more self-sufficient, more reliant on not just the dollars that are generated from the lease agreements with some of the properties, but more importantly some of the businesses around there. so, i'd prefer to see that head in that direction and not a direction of being supported by
10:02 pm
the general fund. so, just wanted to mention that. >> okay. >> okay. market octavia area plan, i was wondering what is the role that the department of children youth and families have to play in terms of supporting that plan? i don't understand that. >> you know, i was just looking because we did have our representative from the planning department who did step out or was able to stick around. i think the children youth and family in these area plans, it relates mostly to child care facilities and fees that -- development fees that are specified in the plan that will go towards enhancing or enlarging child care centers or developing child care centers. >> in the octavia -- >> in the area plan itself. >> okay. >> yeah. so, it would be -- >> although that's not happened just yet? >> well, that's right. and there is a group that we
10:03 pm
work with in our agency planning implementation committee called the [speaker not understood] report annually on the activities and part of it is i think where we are as far as collecting the fees and is there enough fee collected to be able to do a project. i'd be happy to follow-up with you or your office or have someone from planning follow-up with you who can -- >> that would be helpful. thank you. >> happy to. >> so, under the san francisco -- well, san francisco housing initiative, i was curious as to why a property which is owned by the city, midtown, is not necessarily listed in any capital planning for the city. it's under the mayor's office of housing. >> it's under the mayor's office of housing. you know, i'm not familiar with that particular property. the housing -- you know, this
10:04 pm
is the first year we do have a more robust chapter on housing than we have had in the past because of that -- they were not owned by the city. they were owned by nonprofits. >> in this case this is one particular asset which is owned by the city which is a very unheard of unique situation which is where whether housing section existed or not should continue to be part of the capital plan. >> right, right. and again, that's one i would need to follow-up with you on because i don't have someone from the mayor's office of housing or someone from real estate -- i recall some discussions of that, but i don't know all the details or enough details. >> okay. i wanted to also express my concern about the ability -- i know that many may think that san francisco is made of money, but i think part of what we're
10:05 pm
charged to do is make sure that we're spending money in the appropriate places. and i think when we're looking at things that we're building specifically in the octavia boulevard area, there will be a new market rate -- a number of new market rate housing as well as affordable housing. and, so, we are talking about, based on what you have in your plan, clearly about another 10,000 residents. and, so, we are continuing to deal with issues around getting people around in san francisco and what that means for the future. so, we need to make sure that the -- that we're balancing the needs of our transportation issues with the needs of what's to come with the new population of people. i think we're not keeping up with the demand and, so, that's
10:06 pm
definitely important moving forward in the future, i'd like to see those two things kind of catch up to one another as you move forward with this plan. and also, i'd also like to -- i know that, again, you mentioned there's been a more robust housing section in the capital plan because what i appreciated that the mayor has taken the leadership on making sure that we make housing authority a priority for san francisco, it's been neglected for so many years. and clearly the capital need -- the need for maintenance and repair is -- will be and is, from my understanding -- i'm a little confused. maybe this is a question. but according to this document, the need over the next 10 years
10:07 pm
will be 235 million. it's my understanding that currently, for example, in this current fiscal year, there is an anticipated, although because of sequestration there may not -- it may not be received. but in this fiscal year there is anticipated 10 million to support capital needs in the development and the current need is over 200 million. so, i'm trying to reconcile what's actually the case so that i can understand exactly what we as a city should maybe plan for as it relates to public housing in particular. >> right. and i think this is referring to the hope sf project. >> i'm actually referring to the overall capital budget for the housing authority provided to me by the interim director
10:08 pm
barbara smith. >> right. and i believe -- again, you know, i believe what we have with them is that there's -- i know we've been moving forward with the hope sf project and there is a lot of infrastructure [speaker not understood] with them. [speaker not understood]. they still haven't completely prioritized them, but that's going to be a challenge in the next capital plan and going forward. how do we come up with the money to help do the infrastructure for those -- for the final two hope sf projects. >> so, in terms of my understanding, it had more to do with repair and maintenance that was needed in terms of the need and not necessarily any of the developments in terms of -- >> for the housing authority --
10:09 pm
>> specifically, yes. >> yeah. again, you know, i mean, the housing authority is an area where in the capital plan we've been listing since this is an agency we don't have direct control over. we've been trying to work with them around what are some of the ways you can increase the amount that you have for renewing your assets, but they've really been dependent on the federal government for them and i think it's the state and the federal government to do that, which has not been working out. they're not getting enough money to maintain the assets in the condition that they need to be. so, that's a discussion, you know, again, it would be another sort of renewal need, the needs we put into the mix. it needs to be put into the mix and we need to figure out again how we take the money that we have and begin to address them. >> so, i think that what i'd like to do or i guess what i
10:10 pm
don't want to do is by passing this today, i don't want to put us in a box where we're limited to following the scope of what this capital plan is proposing because i'd like to see [speaker not understood] into the enhancement program t. was removed, i know. i don't know whose decision -- even though this is more under housing authority and the mayor's office of housing, it was removed from a priority list that's one of the oldest developments and it's completely falling apart. and i prefer that it's under the enhancement program. i'd also prefer that there is more information about midtown in this capital plan report, and these are things that i know will take center stage hopefully in the near future. so, we're passing this plan today. i guess i would ask whether or
10:11 pm
not there is room for amendments or changes based on things that or priorities that need to be redirected. >> right. yes, and i would sort of reiterate what the controller was saying before. it's a resolution, it's a planning document. it does not mean we cannot make adjustments to it and doesn't mean that we can -- that we don't have to make -- that we cannot make changes to it. so, certainly during the budget process there are changes and discussions that can be had about these. and we also, you know, this is the first real two-year capital plan that we've committed to in the fall or next winter, you know. if there are significant changes, being able to do a supplemental. so, we would be open, you know, to doing that if we need to. or if the capital planning
10:12 pm
committee, you know, so desires. >> and my last question is in terms of the -- i'm trying to understand exactly how the affordable housing trust funds somehow support how these projects under the housing initiative get done, is that -- i mean, in terms of how did you it match up. >> yeah, it's a new -- again, it's a new source that we have and we noted it is one of the new revenue sources we're excited about that can go toward -- toward housing and toward capital for housing. and i should say that prior to this capital plan where we're owning some of this housing, the focus has always been to the owned assets and we've never owned housing prior to this. >> actually -- [multiple voices] >> maybe that funky one, right. but as far as i know, never really been an owner of housing
10:13 pm
so i think those are some of the issues we still need to work through. you know, we own it, what are we responsible for, what is the lease for a nonprofit responsible for, and how do we manage that to make sure that, like you're saying, i think our interests are the same, to make shura sets that we own are well taken care of and that they're not forgotten about. >> thanks again for your presentation. i'm really looking forward to just getting some of these projects done. i really appreciate the work that's already been done in the district 5 community, places like hamilton rec center, kimball park. there's been just some amazing -- the library, western addition library. i mean, we are just really fortunate to have the ability to do what's necessary. and even with the african-american art and culture complex and the renovations that have taken there, an old building,
10:14 pm
repurposed it for the purpose of maintaining it for generations to come and, so, i'm really looking forward to what's to come. and also making sure that transportation is definitely made more of a priority to keep up with the increase in housing developments that we will continue to build. so, thank you so much. >> you're welcome. >> anything left to continue? mr. strong, anything more in your presentation? >> oh, no. i'm sorry, no, the presentation is done. so, i'm just taking questions. >> okay. supervisor wiener. >> thank you. so, i have a question for the controller. as you probably can surmise from my comments before, i don't think the bond for muni is adequate. and, so, my question to the controller is -- and in addition to that, we have this
10:15 pm
transportation task force that the mayor and president chiu have convened and which will result in recommendations around transit funding. i imagine they'll take a few more months so it's a little bit unsink row miled with this plan. i'm not suggesting we delay an option of the capital plan. ~ unsynchronized i'm wondering with the controller, are there any possibilities -- is there any possibility of increasing the size of the transit bond without violating our commitment not to raise taxes above 2006 levels? >> supervisor, so, the general obligation bonds contained in the plan are built out based upon work with our office on what we expect the property tax base to look like in the future. so, it's based upon our projections what we think property taxes will look like in the city. so, you have in the plan our best estimate today of what would be available given our
10:16 pm
estimates of what property tax break we expect to occur in the city. however, we do periodically and throughout the year update our projections of property tax revenue. we have found in the past at times that new information leads to a higher rope which leads to a greater property tax base which does create additional authorization for general obligation bonds. i'm not certain that will happen, but it's certainly something we can update you on periodically as we do often on other revenues. and that would be to the extent that property taxes [speaker not understood] expect, that would create additional authority within the tax rate for additional jeb obligation bonds. >> thank you. ~ general in term of the current projections and the current bond plan proposal in this document, it puts us -- everything becomes in a way zero sum game and it puts those of us advocating for greater transit funding and support in
10:17 pm
an awkward position because, to make any adjustments, that means you're taking money from the department of public health buildings or from seismic safety. whatever. the committee has set a baseline and it makes any changes challenging because we're talking from one area to give to another area. ~ so, what i'd like to do, given that we're going to be coming forward with recommendations from the transit task force and given that there -- that it is possible that there will be some leeway to increase size of the transit bond would be to make an amendment to the adopting resolution to take into account that possibility. and it would be an additional resolved clause, which i'll read. may not be the most artful language, but hopefully it's close enough. resolved that the capital planning committee will submit transit related amendments to
10:18 pm
this plan to the board of supervisors to action following the issuance of the final recommendations by the transportation task force with an increase to the prov proposed transit reliability bond if that increase will not increase property taxes above 2006 levels. ~ i hope that made sense. and i think that will allow us to do a reevaluation once the task force recommendations come out. it may or may not be possible, depending on what the tax role look like, if it is possible, it will increase the size of that investment. so, that's my motion, is to make that amendment to the resolution. >> president chiu. >> thank you, mr. chair. and obviously why i don't serve on the budget committee, but i am here representative to capital planning. i want to support from the side the amendment that supervisor wiener has just laid out and point out as we look at the
10:19 pm
general obligation bond program that is outlined in this policy document to supervisor wiener's point, i think none of us want to begrudge any of the various specific debt issuance that have been proposed for these various levels, but we know that, one, there is certainly the possibility of an increase that we can hopefully tap on and secondly we do know from the conversation at the transportation task force that we will likely be coming out with some fairly robust recommendations that hopefully will fit within the confines of what the capital planning committee is doing. so, i think this amendment gives us the ability in a few months, six months or so to both get information from our controller and give the capital planning committee an opportunity to give us some revised recommendations back based on all that work so we can hopefully get to a place where i think many of us on the board do agree that funding for transportation needs to be
10:20 pm
increased and hopefully we might have a path to do that. >> okay. colleague, any further comments? supervisor avalos. >> just a question for the controller. the language that supervisor wiener has suggested, is that descriptive enough to be able to say what we want to say in terms of debt issuance and debt retirement? >> i think it's pretty clear the intent. so, yeah, we would understand that language to mean take the most recent updated property tax projections, rerun the modeling exercises we do with general obligation bond authority that allows, and then any increments could potentially come forward through the train pour thaition working task group to the board to increase this bond. that's how i understand the resolution. >> okay. i could go along with that language. actually, i would be okay with not having any reference to 2006, but to say that we
10:21 pm
actually, you know, issue a more flexible way of issuing bonds for our transportation and transit based on what comes out of the transportation task force. but if you insist on that, i probably can go along. >> you know, i understand your point. i think it's a reasonable one, but i also -- i think one of the reasons why -- and as president chiu referred to mr. north, one of the reasons why for a long time the voter had no appetite for general obligation bonds and then in the last number of years the voters have been very consistent in passing these bonds is that we've put into place this really wonderful capital planning process. we've been much more comprehensive and i think responsible as a city in terms of having clear policies and guidelines in place. and one of those is that we
10:22 pm
issue bonds and to retire them. i think the voters appreciate it when we impose that kind of fiscal discipline. and, so, my preference will be just to stay within that. and if the modeling turns out to be not at all for any kind of change to the bond, we can always make a reassessment about the size of various bonds or about other ways of financing our important transportation system. but i would be comfortable sticking with the language as is. >> okay. >> okay. thanks, everyone. appreciate it, mr. strong. colleague, if there's no more comments right now, i know there's a pending motion, but we'll take public comment first. if there's any members of the public that wish to comment on items number 2 or number 3, please step forward. [inaudible].
10:23 pm
good afternoon, my name is kim carter. i am a union representative with ifpte local 21. as you know, we represent 4,000 city workers including criminalists in the sfpd crime lab. they work really hard to solve crime by analyzing evidence. their work helps to convict the guilty and free the innocent. i'm here today to share our appreciation for inclusion of funding for a new lab in the plan. the current lab is outdated, too small, and falling apart resulting in backlogs. a new state-of-the-art facility is a much needed improvement and a crime fighting tool for san francisco. thank you. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public who wish to comment on items 2 or number 3? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, we have items number 2 and 3 in front of us as well as an amendment from supervisor wiener. that is clear enough for our city attorney. okay.
10:24 pm
supervisor wiener, do you want to comment first? >> yes. again, i want to thank capital planning committee and mr. north for all the work. you know, despite my criticisms of the transportation aspect of this plan, and i won't repeat what i said before about i think its inadequacy overall, this capital plan is very solid and very important. i'm sorry, mr. strong, i'm sorry about that. i think the plan is quite worthy of support and so i'll be supporting it today and i move that we forward it with positive recommendation, assuming that the amendment is [inaudible]. >> thanks. i also want to thank mr. strong. and i do think our capital process is one of the great things we have for us going on from a planning perspective and allows us to comment on what direction we want the stoic go
10:25 pm
in and concur with supervisor wiener's comments. when i talk to voters and there's a pact with them holding down the percentage of their property taxes, but between new bonds as we retire the old ones, i think it makes a lot of sense to people and people are on board with it so i concur with that. so, we'll make a motion to accept supervisor wiener's amendment. we can do that without opposition. okay, so moved. [gavel] >> and we can move items number -- make a motion to move items number 2 and 3 forward to the board with recommendation. >> [inaudible]. >> oh, sorry. so, let's take this up, then. so, with the item number 2 we can table item number 2. we can do that without opposition. so moved. [gavel] >> and item number 3 as amended, we can take a motion to forward to the full board with recommendation. without opposition. so moved. [gavel] >> all right. thank you.
10:26 pm
mr. clerk, can you call item number 4 and 5 together? >> item number 4, hearing to receive an update from the mayor's budget office on the city's information and communication technology plan. item number 5, resolution adopting the city's five-year information and communication technology plan for fiscal year 2013-2014 through fiscal year 2017-2018 pursuant to administrative code, section 22a.6. >> thank you. and we have a member from court here. i also want to recognize i called for this hearing along with supervisor chiu. want to thank him for that. obviously focus here in terms of our budget process, also recognizing how important our technology is to improving our technology within our city and county of san francisco is to our ongoing services and operations as a city. so, i look forward to this hearing and president chiu, comments? >> thank you, colleagues. just wanted to make a couple of brief opening comments. first of all, i wanted to comment obviously sponsor this hearing not just here as a
10:27 pm
representative to coyt, but also as the author of the legislation that now requires five-year capital planning when it comes to our information technology. and i know you've heard me say this before, but there are still so many aspects of our city's i-t systems that are stuck in 1999 and we need to -- and we have needed to figure out how we invest in smart ways to move us into a truly 21st century city government. from a big picture standpoint as i think you know, colleagues, we spend about $200 million a year on our annual i-t budget, but as our acting cio and our mayor's budget office will layout, we have about a half a billion dollars of capital needs over the next five years. we have about a $200 million shortfall over the next five years and so just as in the ten-year capital context, we have significant shortfalls that we need to find funding for. that is also the same when it comes to our i-t. i want to apologize unfortunately i have backed up
10:28 pm
meeting in my office and i need to bet back to my office brief. but i just wanted to and i know there is a presentation that the city staff will do. but have two questions and if at some point during the presentation you might be address it that would be appreciated. i really think that this sct plan well captures a lot of our city's needs and has been the product of a lot of work from a lot of departments around the city. ~ ict one thing i had hoped would be in this project we which we discussed at coyt and this was an issue that was raised by formal members of the civil grand jury when i it came to i-t, this plan doesn't really talk about some of the more troubled projects that we've had. in other words, projects like the justice program like our e-mail system, like data centers, et cetera, where we have over a number of years said we were going to do something, laid out a budget for it, and not only missed those budget targets, but
10:29 pm
missed the scheduled targets as well. and i know this is a forward looking document, but one strong suggestion i have continually had for the department of technology as well as for coyt is that we do a better job of tracking the progress that we said we were going to make and comparing that on a regular basis to where we are. it is a -- it has been a real challenge when it comes to move forward our it and something i think we need to do to be more accountable. the other thing i just wanted to mention is i know there are overall city-wide it board committeevxes. but i think one of the biggest challenges we've had in the it world within city government is understanding within different departments what folks are doing and figuring out whether we can be doing more from a centralized standpoint. and while the information in the proposed five-year plan lays out overall numbers, i don't think it does or pays enough attention to some of those departmental budgets and how that fits in with the larger [speaker not understood]. i want to